VIJAY AUTOMOBILES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 391.00 on the allegetion that some goods were booked from Delhi to Tatanagar by parcel way bill No. 536363 but did not reach destination. Before the suit was filed, a notice was given under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 78 B of the Indian Railways Act.

(2.) It appears that at the hearing of the suit before the Additional Judge, Small Cause Court a contention was raised that the notice under Section 78 B of the Indian Indian Railways Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invalid which has been accepted on the ground that the notice stated that the goods had been despatched from Delhi Railway Station whereas they had been booked from Delhi Sabzimandi City Booking Agency. It was held that because proper particulars were not given, the defendant did not make the necessary enquiry.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The question whether the notice is invalid and what is its effect has ro depend on the nature of the omission or error, Learned Counsel for the tespondent cited Mjs. Chaturbhai v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1961. Patna 334 and Union of India v. Nageshwar Prasad, A.I.R. 1964, Patna 373, to submit that in both these cases it was held that if the wrong railway station was mentioned, the notice was bad, and hence, the suit has to fail I may here mention that these judgments were based on an earlier judgment of the Patna High Court reported as Mohammad Farooq v. Governor General A.I.R. 1949, Patna 93, wherein a notice was held to be valid, because the mistake which was regarding the date of the despatch of goods was bona fide. So, the real question turns on whether the error in the notice is one which is bona fide, and also, one which had the effect of failing to give sufficient particulars about the goods booked.